The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Did anyone watch tonight's Texas documentary?
At one point the Theroux-wannabe was talking to someone who claimed the death penalty was ordained by God.
His argument was that in some new translations of the bible, the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" instead of kill. Which allows the 'eye for an eye' thing back into play, so long as you use the right definition of murder.
The reason I'm tempted to dismiss this as cheap semantics off hand is because the guy was an old man, and given the widely accepted beliefs in Texas, he probably supported the death penalty when he thought his god really did mean 'kill'.
And if he didn't, you can be sure the vast majority of christians who support the death penalty would have.
But I am interested about these definitions - who's changing the word of god, and is it genuinely because of improved knowledge of the original language (it wouldn't be the first time) OR is it because someone has chosen to change things a little to make the word of god better fit their own ideas (also wouldn't be the first time).
I don't suppose anyone knows? Or has any ideas where I could start looking?
Another thing...
The interviewer was speaking to a pro-gun-law woman, who'd seen her parents killed by a mad gunman and felt if she'd been allowed to carry her own gun, she could have stopped it.
She subsequently went into politics and (with Bush as governor) brought about a change in law to allow people to carry unconcealed handguns in public.
So, the interviewer asks her what she thought of the argument that if instead of relaxing gun laws, tighter controls could have stopped nuts getting guns, and saved her parents (and other such victims).
She laughed at him.
Then answered along the lines of... 'when someone breaking into my house at night I'm not going to turn the lights on to check the colour of his skin (?!) or whether he wants to steal money for drugs or kill my children'.
Which didn't seem to answer the question.
Nevertheless, shortly after, I found myself laughing at the guy claiming the death penalty to be ordained by god (admittedly before he put across the 'thou shalt not murder' argument). I've been toying with the possibility before, and while I may see better reason in my arguments I'm sure the woman did too (even if she didn't want to share the reasons for the camera!), I have to wonder whether I'm turning into a sneering closed-minded fool, like so many people I disagree with.
I'm wondering whether it's the fate of all people, once they begin to find an opinion, whatever it is, they turn into smug, condescending, ignorant, sneering, closed-minded mongs.
I despare
:^)
At one point the Theroux-wannabe was talking to someone who claimed the death penalty was ordained by God.
His argument was that in some new translations of the bible, the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" instead of kill. Which allows the 'eye for an eye' thing back into play, so long as you use the right definition of murder.
The reason I'm tempted to dismiss this as cheap semantics off hand is because the guy was an old man, and given the widely accepted beliefs in Texas, he probably supported the death penalty when he thought his god really did mean 'kill'.
And if he didn't, you can be sure the vast majority of christians who support the death penalty would have.
But I am interested about these definitions - who's changing the word of god, and is it genuinely because of improved knowledge of the original language (it wouldn't be the first time) OR is it because someone has chosen to change things a little to make the word of god better fit their own ideas (also wouldn't be the first time).
I don't suppose anyone knows? Or has any ideas where I could start looking?
Another thing...
The interviewer was speaking to a pro-gun-law woman, who'd seen her parents killed by a mad gunman and felt if she'd been allowed to carry her own gun, she could have stopped it.
She subsequently went into politics and (with Bush as governor) brought about a change in law to allow people to carry unconcealed handguns in public.
So, the interviewer asks her what she thought of the argument that if instead of relaxing gun laws, tighter controls could have stopped nuts getting guns, and saved her parents (and other such victims).
She laughed at him.
Then answered along the lines of... 'when someone breaking into my house at night I'm not going to turn the lights on to check the colour of his skin (?!) or whether he wants to steal money for drugs or kill my children'.
Which didn't seem to answer the question.
Nevertheless, shortly after, I found myself laughing at the guy claiming the death penalty to be ordained by god (admittedly before he put across the 'thou shalt not murder' argument). I've been toying with the possibility before, and while I may see better reason in my arguments I'm sure the woman did too (even if she didn't want to share the reasons for the camera!), I have to wonder whether I'm turning into a sneering closed-minded fool, like so many people I disagree with.
I'm wondering whether it's the fate of all people, once they begin to find an opinion, whatever it is, they turn into smug, condescending, ignorant, sneering, closed-minded mongs.
I despare
:^)
I often wonder how different the world would be if God had given to Moses different Commandments. Maybe He should've kept it purer and just gone for one: 'Thou Shalt Respect & Appreciate Every One & Every Thing Equally' - ?
It is people like that who tarnish other religious folk.
There are two passages I can think of that have the phrase an eye for an eye.
The first in Deuteronomy 19 does indeed say "soul will be for soul , eye for eye...".
Everyone however takes it out of context and thinks it applies to everything. If you read the verses before it you'll notice a slight difference. It was the penalty for false testimony, "and if the witness is a false witness and has brought a false charge against his brother you must also do to him just as he had schemed to do to his brother."
Bit of a difference there isn't there?
Now it is true that there was a death penalty for various crimes. The difference was that the Jewish nation were a special property of God at that time, as opposed to just another country. So they had a bunch of laws regarding keeping the nation pure.
After the arrival of Jesus however the Mosaic Law ceased. The nation stopped being a special property. So the law wouldn't apply to Christians, who would follow Jesus's command in Matthew 5 where it was said "you heard that it was said eye for eye and tooth for tooth, however I say to you: do not resist that is wicked but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him".
So, yes, in the days of the Israelites then yes there was a death penalty sanctioned by God, when it was a whole nation to protect. After the nation was no longer in a covenant relationship then those laws ceased to be in effect and a Christian should recognise that.
Once again, the bible doesn't change, people just take things out of context.
There are two passages I can think of that have the phrase an eye for an eye.
The first in Deuteronomy 19 does indeed say "soul will be for soul , eye for eye...".
Everyone however takes it out of context and thinks it applies to everything. If you read the verses before it you'll notice a slight difference. It was the penalty for false testimony, "and if the witness is a false witness and has brought a false charge against his brother you must also do to him just as he had schemed to do to his brother."
Bit of a difference there isn't there?
Now it is true that there was a death penalty for various crimes. The difference was that the Jewish nation were a special property of God at that time, as opposed to just another country. So they had a bunch of laws regarding keeping the nation pure.
After the arrival of Jesus however the Mosaic Law ceased. The nation stopped being a special property. So the law wouldn't apply to Christians, who would follow Jesus's command in Matthew 5 where it was said "you heard that it was said eye for eye and tooth for tooth, however I say to you: do not resist that is wicked but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him".
So, yes, in the days of the Israelites then yes there was a death penalty sanctioned by God, when it was a whole nation to protect. After the nation was no longer in a covenant relationship then those laws ceased to be in effect and a Christian should recognise that.
Once again, the bible doesn't change, people just take things out of context.
I don't see how any dedicated christian could condone the death penalty. Or pretty much any other religion for that matter. Life is supposed to be sacred.
Did anyone watch tonight's Texas documentary?
At one point the Theroux-wannabe was talking to someone who claimed the death penalty was ordained by God.
His argument was that in some new translations of the bible, the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" instead of kill. Which allows the 'eye for an eye' thing back into play, so long as you use the right definition of murder.
The reason I'm tempted to dismiss this as cheap semantics off hand is because the guy was an old man, and given the widely accepted beliefs in Texas, he probably supported the death penalty when he thought his god really did mean 'kill'.
And if he didn't, you can be sure the vast majority of christians who support the death penalty would have.
But I am interested about these definitions - who's changing the word of god, and is it genuinely because of improved knowledge of the original language (it wouldn't be the first time) OR is it because someone has chosen to change things a little to make the word of god better fit their own ideas (also wouldn't be the first time).
I don't suppose anyone knows? Or has any ideas where I could start looking?
Another thing...
The interviewer was speaking to a pro-gun-law woman, who'd seen her parents killed by a mad gunman and felt if she'd been allowed to carry her own gun, she could have stopped it.
She subsequently went into politics and (with Bush as governor) brought about a change in law to allow people to carry unconcealed handguns in public.
So, the interviewer asks her what she thought of the argument that if instead of relaxing gun laws, tighter controls could have stopped nuts getting guns, and saved her parents (and other such victims).
She laughed at him.
Then answered along the lines of... 'when someone breaking into my house at night I'm not going to turn the lights on to check the colour of his skin (?!) or whether he wants to steal money for drugs or kill my children'.
Which didn't seem to answer the question.
Nevertheless, shortly after, I found myself laughing at the guy claiming the death penalty to be ordained by god (admittedly before he put across the 'thou shalt not murder' argument). I've been toying with the possibility before, and while I may see better reason in my arguments I'm sure the woman did too (even if she didn't want to share the reasons for the camera!), I have to wonder whether I'm turning into a sneering closed-minded fool, like so many people I disagree with.
I'm wondering whether it's the fate of all people, once they begin to find an opinion, whatever it is, they turn into smug, condescending, ignorant, sneering, closed-minded mongs.
I despare
:^)
At one point the Theroux-wannabe was talking to someone who claimed the death penalty was ordained by God.
His argument was that in some new translations of the bible, the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" instead of kill. Which allows the 'eye for an eye' thing back into play, so long as you use the right definition of murder.
The reason I'm tempted to dismiss this as cheap semantics off hand is because the guy was an old man, and given the widely accepted beliefs in Texas, he probably supported the death penalty when he thought his god really did mean 'kill'.
And if he didn't, you can be sure the vast majority of christians who support the death penalty would have.
But I am interested about these definitions - who's changing the word of god, and is it genuinely because of improved knowledge of the original language (it wouldn't be the first time) OR is it because someone has chosen to change things a little to make the word of god better fit their own ideas (also wouldn't be the first time).
I don't suppose anyone knows? Or has any ideas where I could start looking?
Another thing...
The interviewer was speaking to a pro-gun-law woman, who'd seen her parents killed by a mad gunman and felt if she'd been allowed to carry her own gun, she could have stopped it.
She subsequently went into politics and (with Bush as governor) brought about a change in law to allow people to carry unconcealed handguns in public.
So, the interviewer asks her what she thought of the argument that if instead of relaxing gun laws, tighter controls could have stopped nuts getting guns, and saved her parents (and other such victims).
She laughed at him.
Then answered along the lines of... 'when someone breaking into my house at night I'm not going to turn the lights on to check the colour of his skin (?!) or whether he wants to steal money for drugs or kill my children'.
Which didn't seem to answer the question.
Nevertheless, shortly after, I found myself laughing at the guy claiming the death penalty to be ordained by god (admittedly before he put across the 'thou shalt not murder' argument). I've been toying with the possibility before, and while I may see better reason in my arguments I'm sure the woman did too (even if she didn't want to share the reasons for the camera!), I have to wonder whether I'm turning into a sneering closed-minded fool, like so many people I disagree with.
I'm wondering whether it's the fate of all people, once they begin to find an opinion, whatever it is, they turn into smug, condescending, ignorant, sneering, closed-minded mongs.
I despare
:^)